4 ms·

I think the emergence of the two-party system in winner takes all voting is due as much to the gambit of the voters: if there's a perception that party A is str

by zipdog 16y ago

I think the emergence of the two-party system in winner takes all voting is due as much to the gambit of the voters: if there's a perception that party A is strongest and party B second strongest, then a vote for party C is essentialy 'wasted' - it's a better strategy to vote for whichever of A and B better represents your view

vukk 16y ago
That is an issue in many voting systems, not just winner takes all. There's a fix for that too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote EDIT: STV would also take power from political parties in multi-party systems, since people can vote for different candidates in different parties, and list the preferred party as the last choice.
protomyth 16y ago
Historically, it was essentially two parties at the start (Federalist, Anti-Federalist) and has more or less been ever sense. The US is basically built on the concept. The current problem is that one or both should have been replaced by now. The current campaign finance laws keep them in power.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships with lobbyists, but I don't see how rejiggering campaign finance changes that. Rich candidates can already self-fund, and eliminating limits would just strengthen the incumbents (why bribe a potential congressman when you can bribe a sitting congressman). The highly gerrymandered districts in most states (70% are safe for one party or the other) seem to be a bigger problem to me.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Yes, gerrymandered districts are a huge problem, but the lack of ability for a person to act as a patron / initial investor for a new political party means that the new rich (any era) aren't able to topple existing parties. That initial pot of money could spur interest in "normal" people allowing them to believe change is possible and actually create it. The only constitutional amendment I would love at this point would be something along the lines of all districts must start at the northwest corner and be as close to boxes as community and terrain allow.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Well, we agree on the gerrymandering, but I think you're just seeing what you want to see WRT campaign finance. Why wouldn't "patrons" just favor existing congressmen? They can deliver the goods immediately, instead of having to win a race and get seated first. Eliminates a bunch of risk for a higher ROI. Basically, I can see your scenario of a noble candidate who can only get funded by one noble wealthy patron, but I think that will basically never happen compared to outright bribery which will happen all the time. I'm inherently suspicious of any politician that's funded by only a few people. You know they have the candidate/congressman on speed dial, and the candidate/congressman knows how important they are. It's a built in conflict of interest. Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate -- even if it's a machine, at least they put in the work to build the machine, lots of retail politics helping lots of little people.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        First, I don't see what you consider the difference between bribery and campaign donation. Is it only a matter of amount? I did say full disclosure, so everyone knows the funding source. Right now the corporations, unions, and political parties have ways of spending large sums of money, but the individual doesn't. I don't see how allowing individuals changes the possibility of influence peddling. Do you not believe that a Congressman is currently capable of refusing to take a call from an important union boss? "Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate" - maybe. Funding wise the Republicans go more that way than the Democrats (strange, but disclosures sometimes tell a weird story).

by zipdog 16y ago

vukk 16y ago

That is an issue in many voting systems, not just winner takes all. There's a fix for that too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote EDIT: STV would also take power from political parties in multi-party systems, since people can vote for different candidates in different parties, and list the preferred party as the last choice.

protomyth 16y ago

Historically, it was essentially two parties at the start (Federalist, Anti-Federalist) and has more or less been ever sense. The US is basically built on the concept. The current problem is that one or both should have been replaced by now. The current campaign finance laws keep them in power.

jbooth 16y ago
Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships with lobbyists, but I don't see how rejiggering campaign finance changes that. Rich candidates can already self-fund, and eliminating limits would just strengthen the incumbents (why bribe a potential congressman when you can bribe a sitting congressman). The highly gerrymandered districts in most states (70% are safe for one party or the other) seem to be a bigger problem to me.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Yes, gerrymandered districts are a huge problem, but the lack of ability for a person to act as a patron / initial investor for a new political party means that the new rich (any era) aren't able to topple existing parties. That initial pot of money could spur interest in "normal" people allowing them to believe change is possible and actually create it. The only constitutional amendment I would love at this point would be something along the lines of all districts must start at the northwest corner and be as close to boxes as community and terrain allow.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Well, we agree on the gerrymandering, but I think you're just seeing what you want to see WRT campaign finance. Why wouldn't "patrons" just favor existing congressmen? They can deliver the goods immediately, instead of having to win a race and get seated first. Eliminates a bunch of risk for a higher ROI. Basically, I can see your scenario of a noble candidate who can only get funded by one noble wealthy patron, but I think that will basically never happen compared to outright bribery which will happen all the time. I'm inherently suspicious of any politician that's funded by only a few people. You know they have the candidate/congressman on speed dial, and the candidate/congressman knows how important they are. It's a built in conflict of interest. Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate -- even if it's a machine, at least they put in the work to build the machine, lots of retail politics helping lots of little people.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      First, I don't see what you consider the difference between bribery and campaign donation. Is it only a matter of amount? I did say full disclosure, so everyone knows the funding source. Right now the corporations, unions, and political parties have ways of spending large sums of money, but the individual doesn't. I don't see how allowing individuals changes the possibility of influence peddling. Do you not believe that a Congressman is currently capable of refusing to take a call from an important union boss? "Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate" - maybe. Funding wise the Republicans go more that way than the Democrats (strange, but disclosures sometimes tell a weird story).